2 attacks on their property and their telephones were intercepted, while there was also interference in her husband’s business activities. c. That, following her dismissal as a magistrate of the Constitutional Tribunal, she was appointed Dean of the Lima Lawyers Professional Association and President of the Board of Deans of the Peruvian Lawyers Professional Associations and instructed by civil society entities to lodge a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights due to the interference of the Executive in the constitutional functions of other State organs. In consequence, she was informed that her husband was going to be condemned “and that he would be arrested”, so they went into exile. d. That, following declarations of the President of Peru in which he referred negatively to the good reputation of Mr. and Mrs. Mur, they decided to give up exile and return to Peru. e. That, due to a recent public declaration, which she signed together with various other Peruvians in order to create a Front for the Defense of Democracy, the following events have occurred: the criminal action aimed at impeding her from leaving the country was reactivated, she has been requested to pay a pledge of 20,000 soles and the public registries have been requested to supply a list of her property so that it may be embargoed; one of her husband’s companies lost a case and both the case and subsequent appeals for review that were presented were processed irregularly in order to prejudice them. f. That all the previous acts against her have a twofold objective: on the one hand, to take away her freedom and her property, and on the other, to impede her reincorporation into to the Constitutional Tribunal, due to legal impediment. g. That the Government, through the judges or prosecutors, uses family or company problems to impose arbitrary judicial penalties that jeopardize the honour and freedom of the persons involved. CONSIDERING: 1. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 2. That Article 63.2 of the American Convention provides that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons”, the Court may take the provisional measures that it deems pertinent, in matters it has under consideration. 3. That, in the words of Article 25.1 and 25.4 of the Rules of Procedures of the Court, [a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63.2 of the Convention.